Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sat May 04, 2019 2:02 pm Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
tox wrote:
First, nothing predating Facebook gets at its scale.
But more importantly, you only reinforce my point. Facebook's hegemony might fade, but what it will be replaced by will be another hegemony. Two of the companies you mentioned are owned by Facebook, and frankly the niche of all of them is different. No one gets political news from anywhere but Twitter and Facebook. So sure, you might replace Zuck with someone else but there's still a single person in charge.
If your argument is that stricter anti-trust standards could preclude regulation... well maybe. But you don't tend to find the anti-regulation people strongly supporting anti-trust legislation so I don't find that a convincing rebuttal.
My argument is that having a single arbiter for what content is acceptable or not, is not appealing to me. Unless, I get direct control over that arbiter so i can ensure it is acceptable to me.
Well, that kind of defeats the idea of regulation. Because of course the people who are "regulated against" are not going to be happy. If there was universal happiness with the regulator, they probably are not very active or necessary. It is precisely because some people don't support regulation that it is necessary.
just trying make sure I understand your position, you support government regulation of social media?
I support government regulation of areas where business interests and those of either consumers or citizens (not the same thing) do not cleanly overlap. I certainly support businesses who have de facto monopolies or oligopolies being monitored, and some self-regulation is also good. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Other than Louis Farrakhan, most of those people were permanently banned from Twitter some as far back as 2016.
I was referring to them to leading the next wave . . . Starting with The Twit in Chief. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sat May 04, 2019 2:03 pm Post subject:
Considering that Facebook pretty much knew what was happening in 2016 and did nothing to stop it (quite the opposite), and considering their conduct since that time has been what can most kindly be referred to as opaque and unsatisfactory, and considering the reach and ubiquity of their platform, yes, I think they need some regulation. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Sat May 04, 2019 2:12 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
I support government regulation of areas where business interests and those of either consumers or citizens (not the same thing) do not cleanly overlap. I certainly support businesses who have de facto monopolies or oligopolies being monitored, and some self-regulation is also good.
I assumed you would support regulation/censorship in social media, but I was just confirming. I pretty much think the company should moderate however they choose, and allow the market to decide their fate. I would be very opposed to any form of government regulation of speech in this media.
First, nothing predating Facebook gets at its scale.
But more importantly, you only reinforce my point. Facebook's hegemony might fade, but what it will be replaced by will be another hegemony. Two of the companies you mentioned are owned by Facebook, and frankly the niche of all of them is different. No one gets political news from anywhere but Twitter and Facebook. So sure, you might replace Zuck with someone else but there's still a single person in charge.
If your argument is that stricter anti-trust standards could preclude regulation... well maybe. But you don't tend to find the anti-regulation people strongly supporting anti-trust legislation so I don't find that a convincing rebuttal.
My argument is that having a single arbiter for what content is acceptable or not, is not appealing to me. Unless, I get direct control over that arbiter so i can ensure it is acceptable to me.
Well, that kind of defeats the idea of regulation. Because of course the people who are "regulated against" are not going to be happy. If there was universal happiness with the regulator, they probably are not very active or necessary. It is precisely because some people don't support regulation that it is necessary.
Your last sentence is very Orwellian. Some people will always oppose regulation of any one thing whether it is speech, what food you eat and when, etc. By your logic, government regulation is needed for everything.
But I do agree with you that my assertion defeats the purpose of regulation. I prefer the consequences of having choice, over the consequences of not having it at all. (EDIT: On most things, not all).
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29337 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sat May 04, 2019 5:05 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
Your last sentence is very Orwellian. Some people will always oppose regulation of any one thing whether it is speech, what food you eat and when, etc. By your logic, government regulation is needed for everything.
But I do agree with you that my assertion defeats the purpose of regulation. I prefer the consequences of having choice, over the consequences of not having it at all. (EDIT: On most things, not all).
On what basis do you draw the line? Is it personal preference?
If there is a bigger underlining principle you subscribe to (that applies across multiple cases). Maybe I could agree. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Your last sentence is very Orwellian. Some people will always oppose regulation of any one thing whether it is speech, what food you eat and when, etc. By your logic, government regulation is needed for everything.
But I do agree with you that my assertion defeats the purpose of regulation. I prefer the consequences of having choice, over the consequences of not having it at all. (EDIT: On most things, not all).
On what basis do you draw the line? Is it personal preference?
If there is a bigger underlining principle you subscribe to (that applies across multiple cases). Maybe I could agree.
It’s case by case. Do I want the government telling me what to eat, when, and in what quantity? No. I’d rather have the choice, even if the consequence is that I may eat something that isn’t particularly healthy.
But things like roads, military, I have no problem at all putting that mainly in the hands of the government to handle.
So those are what I would consider extreme cases.
For something like speech, I’ll always yield to choice (beyond actual threats of violence of course). Because regulatory controls are typically the loosest on day one and always tightens over time. What happens if the decision maker ends up to be the HR head at Netflix and bans any eye contact between people that lasts more than 5 seconds, for instance?
The existing regulatory bodies can’t even agree on how to punish Facebook for their privacy violations. I’m supposed to somehow trust they’ll figure out how to regulate the entire thing? No thank you =)
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 10:30 am Post subject:
right when you think they will at least make a window dressing effort to make their actions appear similar to their claims....they go a pull this...
‘AOC Press’ Parody Killed
Quote:
Twitter has banned the popular parody account @AOCPress despite it complying entirely with the service’s rules on satire by self-labelling as such.
This account – a satire of Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – had over 85,000 followers at the time of the ban and is now permanently suspended.
In an email sent to the account owner, Twitter claimed the reasoning: “you may not register or create fake and misleading accounts.”
The tech giant then followed that statement by saying “you may use Twitter pseudonymously or as a parody.”
Twitter rules require all parody, newsfeed, commentary, and fan accounts to indicate “non-affiliation” in both the account name and bio. The AOC Press Release parody account used the word “parody” in both its account name and biography.
Twitter is full of well known parody accounts.....there is no reasonable defense for this beyond continuing to exhibit strong partisan bias in their actions.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29337 Location: La La Land
Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 11:21 am Post subject:
Quote:
Newsweek understands Twitter blocked Morrison's "AOCpress" and personal accounts because the platform deemed they did not comply with this specific rule: “While you may use Twitter pseudonymously or as a parody, commentary, or fan account, you may not use misleading account information in order to engage in spamming, abusive, or disruptive behavior including attempts to manipulate the conversations on Twitter.”
Quote:
Twitter reportedly sent Morrison an email explaining their fake accounts policy. As well as the rule described above, it said: “You also may not post duplicative or substantially similar content, replies, or mentions over multiple accounts or multiple duplicate updates on one account, or create duplicate or substantially similar accounts."
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 12:21 pm Post subject:
^^^remember from the podcast how they hate to permanently ban accounts....and they always try to use the 3 strikes rule? They even claimed the 3 strikes rule when excusing examples of liberals calling for murder of specific individuals. Yet, they permanently banned this parody account, and the creators account....even though they followed all of the rules as defined by Twitter......but use some non-sense technicality to take down a very popular parody account.
^^^remember from the podcast how they hate to permanently ban accounts....and they always try to use the 3 strikes rule? They even claimed the 3 strikes rule when excusing examples of liberals calling for murder of specific individuals. Yet, they permanently banned this parody account, and the creators account....even though they followed all of the rules as defined by Twitter......but use some non-sense technicality to take down a very popular parody account.
Regardless of what they say, they’re a business and have to act in the interest of their business. Like it or not, banning an account like that is good business and banning people who threaten the lives of MAGA supporters is bad business. You aren’t the target customer.
I didn’t mean to sound like I support it. That’s just the world we live in right now.
Yeah. Well it’s tricky for these sites. They need to decide if they are a publisher or a platform. For legal reasons mainly.
If they are a publisher, they are responsible for the content they publish and can moderate however they like.
If they are a platform, they wouldn’t be responsible for the content because they aren’t the publisher. But they can’t pick and choose what they like in that case.
They are also banning people bringing incidents of hate/racism to light, for bring hate/racism to light. Good or bad?
Bad, but I don't believe they are doing that if you believe what they said on the Joe Rogan show. They give people three strikes. Strike one is a warning. Strike two is a warning plus a temporary suspension. Strike three is a ban. They keep talking about how context matters and is always taken into consideration...if that's true, then this should not happen.
They are also banning people bringing incidents of hate/racism to light, for bring hate/racism to light. Good or bad?
Bad, but I don't believe they are doing that if you believe what they said on the Joe Rogan show. They give people three strikes. Strike one is a warning. Strike two is a warning plus a temporary suspension. Strike three is a ban. They keep talking about how context matters and is always taken into consideration...if that's true, then this should not happen.
If they are making good/bad decisions, then they are publishers and not a platform.
Which would make memes for instance, violations of copyright unless they procure the right to publish that copyrighted material.
Last edited by ringfinger on Tue May 07, 2019 2:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
I didn’t mean to sound like I support it. That’s just the world we live in right now.
Yeah. Well it’s tricky for these sites. They need to decide if they are a publisher or a platform. For legal reasons mainly.
If they are a publisher, they are responsible for the content they publish and can moderate however they like.
If they are a platform, they wouldn’t be responsible for the content because they aren’t the publisher. But they can’t pick and choose what they like in that case.
Well they’re a platform with the goal of having as many users and as much activity as possible. I don’t see it as them trying to push an agenda. I think they believe they are making decisions to maximize the amount of users and activity on their site.
I didn’t mean to sound like I support it. That’s just the world we live in right now.
Yeah. Well it’s tricky for these sites. They need to decide if they are a publisher or a platform. For legal reasons mainly.
If they are a publisher, they are responsible for the content they publish and can moderate however they like.
If they are a platform, they wouldn’t be responsible for the content because they aren’t the publisher. But they can’t pick and choose what they like in that case.
Well they’re a platform with the goal of having as many users and as much activity as possible. I don’t see it as them trying to push an agenda. I think they believe they are making decisions to maximize the amount of users and activity on their site.
Exactly right, which is a totally different motivation than trying to ensure free speech. They don't care about maximizing freedom, they care about maximizing engagement with their platform. Whatever rules they put into place are ultimately driven by that. More people using the platform should mean more money from advertisers.
I didn’t mean to sound like I support it. That’s just the world we live in right now.
Yeah. Well it’s tricky for these sites. They need to decide if they are a publisher or a platform. For legal reasons mainly.
If they are a publisher, they are responsible for the content they publish and can moderate however they like.
If they are a platform, they wouldn’t be responsible for the content because they aren’t the publisher. But they can’t pick and choose what they like in that case.
Well they’re a platform with the goal of having as many users and as much activity as possible. I don’t see it as them trying to push an agenda. I think they believe they are making decisions to maximize the amount of users and activity on their site.
They don’t have to have an agenda. If they are picking and choosing what content appears, they could be considered a publisher.
(I should add... any content that violates a legal statute is excepted... such a threat of violence for example).
I didn’t mean to sound like I support it. That’s just the world we live in right now.
Yeah. Well it’s tricky for these sites. They need to decide if they are a publisher or a platform. For legal reasons mainly.
If they are a publisher, they are responsible for the content they publish and can moderate however they like.
If they are a platform, they wouldn’t be responsible for the content because they aren’t the publisher. But they can’t pick and choose what they like in that case.
Well they’re a platform with the goal of having as many users and as much activity as possible. I don’t see it as them trying to push an agenda. I think they believe they are making decisions to maximize the amount of users and activity on their site.
They don’t have to have an agenda. If they are picking and choosing what content appears, they could be considered a publisher.
If you’re talking legally, I have no idea and you may be right. But amongst the general public they are considered a social media platform and not a publisher.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 2:55 pm Post subject:
Speaking of echo chambers, and setting aside the nuance and context of the AOC "parody" account issue, it is fun to read that social media is both surgically biased against the right wing (and again, nevermind that the hate accounts skew heavily right wing) AND so indiscriminately one size fits all that they are catching legit non partisan accounts and those arguing against hate. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
You take a screenshot of a movie and make a meme out of it and post it to your Facebook or Twitter account.
Are Facebook/Twitter in violation of copyright law? Why or why not?
It’s probably covered by the fair use doctrine as long as you don’t go overboard. There have been some reports of copyright holders trying to go after people. I don’t know how it turned out.
You take a screenshot of a movie and make a meme out of it and post it to your Facebook or Twitter account.
Are Facebook/Twitter in violation of copyright law? Why or why not?
It’s probably covered by the fair use doctrine as long as you don’t go overboard. There have been some reports of copyright holders trying to go after people. I don’t know how it turned out.
I would say they aren’t because they are legally viewed as a platform for now.
But if they were Universal Studios using other people’s works in their content, I bet it would be a whole different story even if the content is the same.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29337 Location: La La Land
Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 7:34 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
So here’s a question.
You take a screenshot of a movie and make a meme out of it and post it to your Facebook or Twitter account.
Are Facebook/Twitter in violation of copyright law? Why or why not?
It’s probably covered by the fair use doctrine as long as you don’t go overboard. There have been some reports of copyright holders trying to go after people. I don’t know how it turned out.
I would say they aren’t because they are legally viewed as a platform for now.
But if they were Universal Studios using other people’s works in their content, I bet it would be a whole different story even if the content is the same.
It has nothing to do with if it's a platform or not.
It comes down to fair use like AH said.
This video might give you the answer you are seeking: _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Tue May 07, 2019 8:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
